http://dx.doi.org/10.

17159/2411-9717/2016/v116n2a9

Testing for heterogeneity in complex

mining environments
by J.O. Claassen*




 ,-%*1* The data generated from sampling campaigns
Homogeneous populations are required to perform descriptive, forms the basis of nearly all decision-making
probabilistic, and inference statistics and to support stable, predictable at the operational, tactical, and strategic levels.
mining operations. The geological and downstream processing As such, it can be argued that the quantity,
environments are, however, highly heterogeneous. The complex nature of quality, and correct use of sampling data
mining environments requires means to identify and define multi- greatly influence the sustainability of a mining
population environments that could affect the performance of mining operation.
value chains. A study performed at several operating mines suggests that
As far as sampling of heterogeneous
the impact of heterogeneous or variable geological, mining, and plant
environments is concerned, an attempt should
processing environments on overall mining value chain performance may
not be a key focus area at these operations. This was illustrated through be made to capture the variability (both spatial
the use of basic and spatial statistics, which included the log-probability and in time) in all key value chain
plot, a modified range equation, and chronovariography. The findings performance drivers through representative or
reflect high relative variability in the geological and processing random sampling. According to the theory of
environments studied and mining operators’ inability to effectively deal sampling developed by Pierre Gy (1983),
with the sources and consequences of variability. The study suggests that sampling errors are induced mainly by high
a focus on heterogeneity in complex mining operations may significantly levels of heterogeneity of the population being
enhance overall mining performance. sampled.

/ -.'*
heterogeneity, mining variability, variography, chronovariography. 

,+.-'&#+1-,


Heterogeneity refers to a state or quality of
being variable/diverse and comprising
different non-compatible elements or parts. In
statistical terms a heterogeneous population
can refer to a population comprising different
non-compatible sub-populations or a multi-
population environment. The latter is
commonly found in natural environments such
as geological environments (Bardossy and
Fodor, 2001). The inherent heterogeneity of
complex geological environments is also
referred to as spatial heterogeneity.
Heterogeneity or variability, however, also
occurs over time at mining operations. A case
in point is variable ore composition on a
conveyance system feeding a processing plant
or product stockpile.
Heterogeneity associated with the mining
environment can significantly influence key
aspects of day-to-day mining operations such
as sampling, the use of descriptive,
probabilistic, and inference calculations, and
an operation’s ability to manage and control
the mining value chain as a whole.

Descriptive statistics are used on a daily basis
in mining operations to calculate values such
as the average, median, range, and standard
deviation of a known data-set. Probabilistic
and inference statistics are less frequently
employed. Probabilistic statistics (based on
probability theory) are used to determine the
likelihood or degree of certainty/uncertainty of
outcomes drawn from a known population, i.e.
if the population is known, what can be
deduced from the samples taken from it?
Inference statistics are used to describe an
unknown population if everything about the
sample is known (random sampling required).
Inference statistics involve tests of hypotheses,
confidence intervals, and regression.
* Department of Geology, University of the Free
State, Bloemfontein.
© The Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 2016. ISSN 2225-6253. Paper received
Sep. 2015; revised paper received Sep. 2015.
L



  
 
 

 181
Testing for heterogeneity in complex mining environments
It should be noted that the existence of a homogeneous
population, combined with representative random samples
drawn from the population, forms the basis of these
calculations as illustrated in Figure 1. This implies that:
® The application of descriptive, probabilistic, and
inference statistical calculations is suspect unless
In conclusion, it can be argued that it is essential for
mining professionals generating and working with data to
utilize means to identify and assist with managing the
sources of heterogeneity, as discussed in the ensuing
paragraphs.
applied to a homogeneous data-set, e.g. calculation of
an average value to describe a population is of little
value unless it is known that the population is
homogeneous
® The geoscientist should test whether heterogeneity
exists in a population or sample before proceeding with
data analysis, simulation, and graphic presentation of
data. This directly affects the accuracy of geological,
mining, and financial models and the effectiveness of
the reconciliation process, among other things.
If the geoscientist is not aware of this fact, then
mathematical blending or integration of non-compatible data
(in a multi-population data-set) can lead to a
misrepresentation of reality and incorrect decision-making at
all levels in the organization, as discussed in more detail in
ensuing paragraphs.



 case where data is naturally skewed, which is often the case
The mining value chain can be viewed as a complex

The study, performed at different mining operations, aims to
demonstrate how simple statistics can be employed to test for
and define heterogeneity. Specific attention is given to the
application of a log-probability plot, a modified range
equation, and chronovariography.
The study also discusses how information gathered from
these basic statistical exercises can be used to improve
management of the impact of heterogeneity and the risks
associated with it.


A probability plot is used to indicate deviations from a bell-
shaped or normal distribution. It can therefore depict multiple
populations or data mixtures through changes in the slope of
the graph, as shown in Figure 3b. The x-axis is scaled
logarithmically in order to obtain a straight line graph in the
with geological data.
integrated system. Resources, activities, equipment, and 
processes are dependent on each other, and the effects of
The ‘spread’ or range of values in a distribution can be used
disturbances that occur ripple up- and downstream through
to indicate heterogeneity or variability. The range equation
the production chain. Forrester (1958), Fowler (1999), Towill
(Equation [1]) was modified to Equation [2] and applied to
(1996), and Wikner et al. (1991) reported that ripple effects
daily production data in the study.
are amplified as they move away from the source up or down
the value chain, with a significant impact on the performance Range = maximum – minimum [1]
of the system as a whole due to the destabilizing effect, as
illustrated in Figure 2. [(M/nmax) – (N/n‐nmax)] x100
Range = [2]
The integrated nature of the mining value chain N/n‐nmax
combined with a heterogeneous geological environment
where
characterized by spatial variability can therefore have a
M/nmax = Average of daily maximum production values =
significant impact on the performance of mining operations,
average of the top 10% values
i.e. variability leads to poor synchronization of activities and
N/n-nmax = Average of the rest of the values (values
a misalignment between ore characteristics and
including or excluding zero values)
plant/equipment settings, for example. This implies that if
heterogeneity and the sources of variability are not identified Equation [2] can be used as an indicator not only of
and addressed, then the compounding effects (increase in variability in, for example, daily production results but also
variability when moving away from the source of variability) of the improvement potential of a system. In many cases zero
can completely destabilize a system (lead to stop-start
operations) and have a detrimental impact on its overall
performance (product volumes, product quality, and cost).

1(&./2 ,#./0*/21,20.10"1)1+ 21,202!1,1,(2* *+/!2/,2*-&.#/*2-$

1(&./210(.0!21,'1#0+1,(2+/2,//'2+-2+/*+2$-.2/+/.-(/,/1+ 0.10"1)1+ 20./2,-+21'/,+1$1/'20,'2%.-%/.) 2!0,0(/'
L

182  

 





  

Testing for heterogeneity in complex mining environments
1(&./202&)+1%-%&)0+1-,2'0+0*/+20,'2"202*1!%)1$1/'2./%./*/,+0+1-,2-$2+/2)-(2%.-"0"1)1+ 2%)-+2-$2+/2'0+0*/+
values are encountered in the production results of mining
operations due, for example, to planned maintenance
interventions. If a more realistic improvement potential of a
system needs to be calculated, these values can be omitted.
The challenge involved with using an equation such as
Equation [2] is to ascertain which benchmark value can be
used to evaluate results. In this study a value of 15% was
assumed to be reasonable for stable operations, i.e. the
maximum values will not differ more than 15% from the rest
of the values. More research needs to be conducted to
establish what benchmark value is acceptable given the
different levels of complexity and variable processing
conditions associated with different mining environments.
When Equation [2] is used to calculate variability in
sequential steps in the mining value chain, e.g. from blasting
to loading, hauling, processing, and product logistics for a
variable such as the amount (tons) of material processed, a
graphical representation of variability and the operation’s
ability to manage the sources of variability is generated, as
shown later in the paper. The effect of disturbances running
through the mining value chain, as alluded to earlier and
depicted in Figure 2, can be illustrated using Equation [2].

Variography has become a frequently employed tool in the
geotechnical environment since the work of Krige (1951) and
Matheron (1960) that formalized the development and use of
variography in spatial estimations. Equation [3] is used to
calculate a variogram plot from which a variogram/kriging
equation is deduced. The latter is then used for kriging to
estimate the spatial distribution of a variable.
Semivariance (γ)2 = 1 ∑[g(x) – g(x+h)]2
[3]
2N
Equation [3] calculates the similarity or homogeneity of
values at different pre-set distances (lags) apart; the
semivariance is calculated as a function of the differences
between distance pairs (g(x) – g(x+h)) and plotted as a
semivariogram as shown in Figure 4.
Key indicators defining the variogram include the sill,
nugget, and range.
® Sill—Indicates the population variance or total variance
in the system as well as the point where data
correlates. The sill can be fitted as the total population
variance or manually fitted to the semivariogram plot.
® Nugget—The semivariance at lag distance = 0 reflects
the inherent variability in the data as a result of the
presence of large grains/nuggets of minerals typically
encountered in precious metals and diamond
operations. When a nugget value is encountered in
more homogenous stratiform deposits or in process
streams (chronovariography), it represents sampling,
segregation, preparation, and analytical errors. The
nugget value can be expressed as a percentage of the
total/sill variance
® Range—The range or range of influence represents the
point beyond which there is limited correlation between
data points. It therefore indicates the maximum
‘allowable’ frequency of sampling to capture the
variability in the variable being studied.
Chronovariography is based on the same principles as
variography, except that the semivariance of a variable is
calculated as a function of time-pairs and not distance-pairs,
as illustrated in the following section. Gy, a metallurgist,
developed ‘chronostatistics’ during the 1950s in order to
illustrate the correlations between samples in a time series or
product stream (Pitard, 1993, 2006). The development and
use of chronovariograms to control a variable in process
streams are discussed by Minnitt and Pitard (2008) in detail.
The authors illustrate how other key indicators of a
chronovariogram, which include the random variability
(variance at time = 0 or nugget in variography), total process
variability (variability at the first time lag), process
variability (the difference between random variability and
total process variability), and the cyclical variability (non-
random variability at the first sill or semi-sill) can be used to
manage variability in process streams as discussed in more
detail in the next section.
The latter requires vast experience and knowledge of 1(&./21!%)1$1/'2./%./*/,+0+1-,2-$2020.1-(.0!2%)-+2'/!-,*+.0+1,(
statistics and the geological environment that is studied / 21,'1#0+-.*2*&#20*2+/2*1))2.0,(/2,&((/+20,'2.1(1,(2/&0+1-,
L




  
 
 

 183
Testing for heterogeneity in complex mining environments

Other statistical tools that assists with the quantification and
management of variability/heterogeneity not discussed in
this paper include chi-square and R charts (Duncan, 1956;
Harris and Ross, 1991; Costa and Rahim, 2004; Woodall and
Spitzner, 2004). These charts have been extensively used
with great success for statistical quality control in the
manufacturing and chemical industries.
/*&)+*20,'2'1*#&**1-,
Basic and spatial statistics are frequently used in geoscience
departments to scrutinize geological data, e.g. to identify
outliers, define the skewness of populations, and estimate
unknown values. However, there is reason to believe that the
use of statistical values and graphs to assist with the
understanding and management of the impact of
heterogeneity on the performance of the mining value chain
as a whole is not that common.




One of the first activities generally performed when dealing
with geological data is to generate a log-probability plot. This
is often preceded by a summary of the descriptive statistics
and a histogram plot of the data.
A study was performed on a mineral deposit hosting two
mineral entities. Histogram plots of the respective grade
1(&./2
-(21*+-(.0!2%)-+*2$-.2020.10")/220,'2"20.10")/22
1(&./2-(%.-"0"1)1+ 2%)-+*2$-.2020.10")/220,'2"20.10")/2
L
184  
distributions for minerals A and B are included in Figure 5
and the log-probability plots in Figure 6.
It is evident from Figures 5 and 6 that the grade
distribution of mineral B exhibit at least two distinctive
populations, i.e. it is heterogeneous in terms of grade. Care
should therefore be taken when applying descriptive
statistics. An average grade for mineral B can be calculated to
determine the overall in situ metal content associated with
mineral B for resource and reserve estimation and reporting
purposes. It is, however, essential for the geoscientist to
establish the cause(s) of the multi-population data-set
(Claassen, 2013) for mineral B prior to estimating product
recovery and final product volumes. This stems from the
possibility that mineral B associated with populations 1 and 2
(Figure 6b) could behave differently in downstream
processing as a result of differences in ore morphology
(texture, mineral associations, impurity levels, etc.) and/or
orebody morphology (dip, faulting, roof and floor conditions,
etc.), which can contribute towards dilution during mining.
In this case an average grade for mineral B was calculated
and used in the mine and business plan. ROM grade, mining
extraction, recovery, and product quality targets for ROM and
final product were seldom met as the plan mostly over- or
underestimated the grade of and processing efficiencies for
mineral B, depending on which area the operator was mining
in at the time. This in turn destabilized the operation and
rendered its performance less predictable.

 





  

Testing for heterogeneity in complex mining environments
This principle can also be applied to cases where not only
chemical grade, but also physical characteristics of the ore
and host rock, vary spatially to the extent that different
populations are clearly distinguishable. Examples include
variability in:
® Hardness, affecting crushing and milling performance
and ultimately the liberation potential of the system
® Near-dense material, affecting dense medium
separation efficiency, product recovery, and quality
® The level of intergrowth affecting liberation size, which
could result in a scenario where ore from different
areas is over- or under-milled when blended and
simultaneously processed. This in turn has a
detrimental effect on product yield and quality.
Claassen (2015) indicated that few southern African
mining operators link variable geological environments with
processing capability in day-to-day operations, as further
demonstrated by this example. The spatial distribution of
relevant chemical and physical characteristics of ore and
waste, as well as their impact on downstream processing
performance, must be understood and correctly included in
models and plans.
successfully dealing with high levels of variability in the
geological, mining, and plant environments.
The consequences of the variability observed at these
operations include unstable and unpredictable operations,
difficulty in estimating realistic production targets for
operational and business plans, production targets being
seldom met in most cases, operations being mostly in ’fire-
fighting’ mode, and poor financial performance.
 
Heterogeneous geological environments often cause variable
processing performance as alluded to earlier.
Chronovariograms of plant feed and product streams can
indicate the presence and level of variability in these streams
and supply very useful information to improve overall
process performance, as discussed in the following
paragraphs.
The feed and product streams of five coal processing
plants were sampled at hourly intervals and analysed for ash
content. To illustrate how a chronovariogram is compiled and
used, the product stream data of one of these plants is firstly
scrutinized (refer to Tables II and III and Figure 8). This is
followed by a chronostatistical analysis of the plant feed
 variability of four coal processing plants.
Equation [2] was used to study the presence of variability in
process streams and the improvement potential at five mines
operating in different commodities. Figure 7 summarizes the
results obtained for the production rate variability in mining,
plant feed (from ROM stockpiles), and plant production for
six consecutive months in each case. All the mines utilized a
ROM buffer stockpile to improve plant and system
performance at the time of the study.
Figure 7 illustrates significant levels of variability
(>>15%) at all the operations evaluated, and also an increase
in variability in downstream operations (also refer to
Figure 2). Table I summarizes the main causes of variability
found at these operations.
The results presented in Figure 7 and Table I probably
indicates that a focus on heterogeneity and its impact on 1(&./2))&*+.0+1-,2-$20.10"1)1+ 21,2%.-'&#+1-,2.0+/*21,2+/2!1,1,(
downstream processing performance does not exist at the * *+/!*2./1//'2!1,/*2
20./2&,'/.(.-&,'2-%/.0+1-,*20,'2!1,/2

operations evaluated, or alternatively that the mines are not 0,2-%/,#0*+2!1,/

Table I
Summary of the main causes of variability at the mines evaluated
Area/ mine Geology Mining Plant Other

Mine 1 Variable roof and Mining equipment not Floor material not compatible
floor conditions optimally matched with ore, causing frequent
with geological environment product quality deviations
Mine 2 Variable in-seam Mining equipment not optimally Excessive amounts of fines Mining equipment maintenance
parting thickness matched with geological environment overloading sections of the plant availability low
and composition
Mine 3 Frequent geological Resource availability High and variable levels of dilution
structures causing at the mining face
high initial variability (full functional work teams)
Mine 4 Highly variable ore - Mining equipment not optimally Blending non-compatible material
seam thickness matched with geological environment from other B sources
- Support functions not adequately staffed on the ROM stockpile
Mine 5 Varying depositional Blending of ore with different
environments with hardness from different areas
variable hardness
L


   
 
 

 185
Testing for heterogeneity in complex mining environments
® Total process variability [V1]—the semivariance at the
Table II
first time lag represents the sum of the random
Summary of hourly analytical data for product ash variability and the variability associated with
Time Ash % processing. It is assumed that very little variability is
contributed towards total process variability by the
06h00–07h00 14.1
material on the conveyor belt within one time-lag. This
07h00–08h00 14.2
assumption should be validated for very complex
08h00–09h00 15.9
environments. In this case V1 = 0.27% ash2 or
09h00–10h00 15.3
0.27/0.67 = 40.3% of the total variance
10h00–11h00 16.1
® Process variability [V1- V0 ]— The difference between
11h00–12h00 15.0
the total process variability and the random variability
12h00–13h00 15.0
is 0.06 ash2 or 0.06/0.67 = 9.0% of the total variance
13h00–14h00 15.1
® Cyclical variability [Vc ]—the cyclical variance
14h00–15h00 15.1
15h00–16h00 15.5
represents the variance at the first or short range cycle,
16h00–17h00 15.0
which amounts to Vc = 0.5 × amplitude = 0.5 × 0.14 =
17h00–18h00 14.4 0.07% ash2 or 0.07/0.67 = 10.4% of the total variance.
18h00–19h00 14.3 Mining operations often exhibit cyclical events
19h00–20h00 14.1 increasing variability in the system. These events
20h00–21h00 15.5 include shift changes, resetting of equipment set-
21h00–22h00 14.6 points, changes in equipment performance over time,
22h00–23h00 16.2 etc. The short-range cycle visible in this example was a
23h00–00h00 16.1 result of changes made in the RD set-points of the
00h00–01h00 15.8 plant’s dense medium cyclones. In this example, the
01h00-02h00 16.3 long-range cycle (9-12 hours) was linked to mining
02h00–03h00 16.3 moving from one mining area to another, i.e. a change
03h00–04h00 16.7 in the plant feed quality
04h00–05h00 16.6 ® Range (hours)— the range deduced from the
05h00–06h00 15.9 chronovariogram in this instance is about 6.3 hours.
Variance 0.67 The range indicates the optimal frequency of sampling
required to adequately capture short-range variability
in the stream. It can therefore be used to optimize plant
Table III sampling regimes based on the inherent variability in
Semivariance calculated for product ash values the system (material being processed as well as the
system/process variability) instead of just sampling
Time lag Semivariance (% ash2) based on a time or mass setting.
0 The same approach was followed to study the variability
1 0.27 in plant feed quality for four different coal processing plants.
2 0.31
3 0.44
The data used was collected over a period of three
4 0.55 consecutive months. The data and semivariances calculated
5 0.48 from the data are summarized in Tables IV and V,
6 0.64
7 0.73 respectively. The values for the chronovariogram variability
8 0.89 indicators were obtained from Figure 9 and are summarized
9 1.00
in Table VI.
10 0.87
11 0.81

The chronovariogram illustrated in Figure 8 contains the

following key variability indicators:
® Sill—the total variance of the data-set was calculated at
0.67% ash2
® Random variability or fundamental error [V0]—the
semivariance at time = 0 represents the sampling,
preparation, and analytical error associated with the
data-set. In this case it is equal to 0.22% ash2 or
0.22/0.67 = 32.8% of the total variance. V0 is obtained
by extrapolating the chronovariogram to time = 0.
Generally a fundamental error associated with
sampling, preparation, and analysis of 10% is assumed
to be acceptable. The high value of nearly 33% implies
that an effort should be made to investigate these steps 1(&./2.-,-0.1-(.0!2-$2%)0,+2%.-'&#+20*20.10"1)1+ 2$-.202#-0)
to establish what factors contribute towards this error %.-#/**1,(2%)0,+2
L

186  

 





  

Testing for heterogeneity in complex mining environments
From Table VI the following findings should be
highlighted:
® Sill—the total variance in plant feed ash is high for
plants 1 and 4 at 45.6% ash2 and 31.7% ash2,
respectively. For plant 1 the random variability
contributed about 20% and process variability about
32% of the total sill value. Random variability (39.4%)
and cyclical variability (34.7%) are the biggest
contributors to variability in the plant feed ash to
plant 4
® Random variability [V0]—the relatively high random
variability for plants 1, 3, and 4 is probability
associated with sampling, preparation, and analysis
errors as discussed earlier

Table V
Table IV Semivariance calculated for plant feed ash values
Summary of hourly analytical data collected over a for four coal processing plants
period of three months for plant feed ash for four
Lag Semivariance (% ash2)
coal processing plants
Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4
Average % ash 0
Time Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 1 23.5 2.5 10.3 14.7
2 38.3 7.7 17.6 17.5
06h00–07h00 35.6 25.6 33.3 18.8 3 52.7 7.5 18.9 22.3
07h00–08h00 35.8 31.3 39.5 23.6 4 59.8 4.9 9.8 36.9
5 43.0 7.5 10.9 41.8
08h00–09h00 38.1 33.9 32.1 23.6 6 49.9 7.4 22.0 40.9
09h00–10h00 46.1 28.6 28.2 24.4 7 39.6 8.3 14.4 27.6
35.8 30.9 35.6 19.7 8 44.5 9.8 9.1 26.2
10h00–11h00
9 38.7 8.9 15.2 18.9
11h00–12h00 31.5 31.2 31.8 23.5 10 44.4 8.8 16.3 28.5
12h00–13h00 26.5 29.3 27.3 28.2 11 41.1 10.0 8.6 33.5
26.6 28.8 30.5 27.2 12 55.2 10.9 21.5 35.7
13h00–14h00
14h00–15h00 26.5 28.7 31.5 26.8
15h00–16h00 49.1 28.9 28.9 21.3
16h00–17h00 30.9 30.5 32.6 25.0
17h00–18h00 40.1 31.8 34.5 26.9
18h00–19h00 36.1 32.0 31.6 31.8
19h00–20h00 30.9 31.3 31.6 35.4
20h00–21h00 26.2 30.9 37.1 39.3
21h00–22h00 36.0 32.4 32.2 25.0
22h00–23h00 36.7 31.8 29.7 25.0
23h00–00h00 28.8 29.8 28.9 19.4
00h00–01h00 22.1 31.6 43.1 20.1
01h00–02h00 31.1 28.8 28.2 25.9
02h00–03h00 42.2 31.1 33.4 32.8
03h00–04h00 31.1 31.0 39.2 27.0
04h00–05h00 26.9 17.8 37.3 38.8
05h00–06h00 26.6 26.4 33.1 27.4
45.6 10.1 15.9 31.7 1(&./2.-,-0.1-(.0!*2-$2%)0,+2$//'20*20.10"1)1+ 2$-.2$-&.2#-0)
Variance
%.-#/**1,(2%)0,+*2

Table VI
Statistical variance and errors calculated from chronovariograms plotted of plant feed ash variance for the
processing plants under review
Variability indicator Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4

Population variance (sill) [% ash2] 45.6 10.1 15.9 31.7

Random variability (V0) [% ash2] 9.0 0 2.5 12.5
Total process variability (V1) [% ash2] 23.5 2.5 10.3 14.7
Process variability (V1- V0) [% ash2] 14.5 2.5 7.8 2.2
Cyclical variability [% ash2] 6.0 2.0 5.0 11.0
Range (time lags) 2.5 11.8 1.8 3.7
Random variability (V0) [%] 19.7 0 15.7 39.4
Total process variability (V1) [%] 51.5 24.8 64.8 46.4
Process variability (V1- V0) [%] 31.8 24.8 49.1 6.9
Cyclical variability [%] 13.2 19.8 31.4 34.7

Note: variability expressed as a % of the population variance/sill value in bottom half of Table VI
L




  
 
 

 187
Testing for heterogeneity in complex mining environments
® Process variability [V1 - V0 ]—the feed ash variance for
plants 1, 2, and 3 exhibits high upstream process
variability. In this case the variability was induced
during mining operations, mainly as a result of highly
variable geological environments and the inability to
adjust to mining condition
® Cyclical variability [Vc ]—the feed to plants 3 and 4
suffered from cyclical variability induced in upstream
operations. It was established that the cyclic events
related to mining frequently moving to different mining
areas with different conditions and ore quality, i.e.
about 5-hourly and 8-hourly cycles for plants 3 and 4,
respectively
® Range (hours)—the results indicate that significant
increases in short-range variability from the first to
second time lag (excluding plant 4) exist. Process and
cyclical variability contributed the most towards these
increases. In order to enable upstream functions to
timeously manage the causes of variability, the
frequency of reporting analysis should probably be
increased. The total cycle time for sampling,
preparation, analysis and reporting should be reduced
to between 2 and 3 hours for the plants evaluated. In
all the cases the total cycle time for sampling,
preparation, analysis and reporting was between 4 and
5 hours.
-,#)&*1-,*
Mining environments are heterogeneous or variable by
nature. This variability directly impacts the use of descriptive,
probabilistic, and inference statistics as well as an operation’s
ability to create a stable and predictable business
environment.
Descriptive, probabilistic, and inference statistics are
applied on the premise that a well-known homogeneous
population or representative sample of the population exist.
For multi-population distributions, these statistical
calculations should be approached with caution. A case in
point is the inappropriate averaging or ‘mathematical
blending’ of grade values in a multi-grade deposit. Utilizing
these averages in mine and business plans can result in
unrealistic plans that are seldom met and which in turn can
destabilize mining operations. The study demonstrated that a
log-probability plot is a good indicator of the existence of
multiple populations in geological environments. It is
imperative that geoscientists not only identify the presence of
multi-population environments, but also establish the root
cause(s) of these populations, understand how they impact
the use of data in plans and models, and know how mining
and plant operations should be set up to optimally process
these deposits. If variable geological environments are
exploited without full consideration of the potential impact on
downstream processing performance, a ripple effect that runs
downstream through the processing chain may be
experienced.
In order to establish whether this effect can be detected in
processing streams a modified range equation and
chronovariography were applied to data obtained from five
operational mines and processing plants. The study reported
relatively high production rate variability using the modified
range equation, varying between 26% and 160%, which is far
L
188  
greater than the ’benchmark’ value of 15%. This was caused
mainly by variable geological environments and mining
operators’ inability to effectively deal with the variability. An
increase in production rate variability from the mining face to
the plant product stockpiles (variability increases further
down the mining value chain) of between about 15% and
over 300% suggest that the root causes of variability have
not been identified and managed at the operations studied.
A ‘chronostatistical’ study conducted on plant feed and
product streams at several coal processing operations also
found high levels of variability in the systems. The results
indicate that random variability (sampling, preparation, and
analysis), process variability (all processing activities), and
cyclical variability (cyclical changes such as equipment set-
point and shift changes) are the main contributing factors
towards relatively high overall variability found in the plants
studied.
The study suggests that a focus on heterogeneity may
significantly enhance overall mining performance as it creates
an opportunity to understand inherent system variability and
address instability and unpredictability in complex mining
environments.
/$/./,#/*
BARDOSSY, G. and FODOR, F. 2001. Traditional and new ways to handle
uncertainty in geology. Natural Resource Research, vol. 10, no. 3.
pp. 179–187.
CLAASSEN, J.O. 2013. Yield improvement at a mid-sized coal mine in the
Witbank coalfields. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy, vol. 113. pp. 761–768.
CLAASSEN, J.O. 2015. Application of systemic flow-based principles in mining.
Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
vol. 115, no. 8. pp. 747–754.
COSTA, A.F.B. and RAHIM, M.A. 2004. Monitoring process mean and variability
with one non-central chi-square chart. Journal of Applied Statistics,
vol. 31, no. 10. pp. 1171–1183.
DUNCAN, A.J. 1956. The economic design of X charts used to maintain current
control of a process. American Statistical Association Journal, June 1956.
pp. 228–242.
FORRESTER, J.W. 1958. Industrial dynamics: a major breakthrough for decision
makers. Harvard Business Review, vol. 38, July–August. pp. 37–66.
FOWLER, A. 1999. Feedback and feedforward as systemic frameworks for
operations control. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, vol. 19, no. 2. pp. 182–204.
GY, P. 1983. Sampling of Particulate Materials, Theory and Practice.
Developments in Geomathematics 4. Elsevier Scientific.
HARRIS, T.J. and ROSS, W.H. 1991. Statistical process control procedure for
correlated observations. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering,
vol. 69. pp. 48–57.
KRIGE, D.G. 1951. A statistical approach to some basic mine valuation problems
in the Witwatersrand. Journal of the Chemical, Metallurgical and Mining
Society of South Africa, December 1951. pp. 119–139.
MATHERON, G. 1960. Traité de géostatistique appliquée, tome i: Mémoires du
bureau de recherches géologiques et minières, vol. 14. 333 pp.
MINNITT, R.C.A. and PITARD, F.F. 2008. Application of variography to the control
of species in material process streams: % Fe in an iron ore product.
Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
vol. 108. pp. 109–122.
PITARD, F.F. 1993. Pierre Gy’s Sampling Theory and Sampling Practise:
Heterogeneity, Sampling Correctness and Statistical Process Control. 2nd
edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 491 pp.
PITARD, F.F. 2006. Chronostatistics: a powerful, pragmatic, new science for
metallurgists. Proceedings of Metallurgical Plant Design and Operating
Strategies, Perth, Australia, 18–19 September 2006. Australasian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne. 22 pp.
TOWILL, D.R. 1996. Industrial dynamics modelling of supply chains.
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
vol. 26, no. 2. pp. 23–42.
WIKNER, J., TOWILL, D.R., and NAIM, M.M. 1991. Smoothing supply chain
dynamics. International Journal Production Economics, vol. 22, no. 3.
pp. 231–248.
WOODALL, W.H. AND SPITZNER, D.J. 2004. Using control charts to monitor process
and product quality profiles. Journal of Quality Technology, vol. 36, no. 3.
pp. 309–320. N